I understand it is sometimes difficult.

[Anonymous]

But what was with this month's issue. 3 pages of this is a hammer and this is what is used for? I read the passenger trains on a budget article 3 times and it was generic and grasping for something but what I do not know. Almost worhtless. The table in the upper lright corner was ok. I liked the kitbashed warehouse and the sectional change outs. There was the giant boring layouts. They are pretty but after you have seen a couple of hundred so what. 8 tips was so so. Just a thin issue.

RMax

[Anonymous]

The easiest job on the planet is being a critic! I thought you guys all though last months issue was lousy. What up with this? I just don't see the same magazine you guys do, I guess. However, you must have oodles of great projects you can share with MRR and dazzle us all! Hey, if what's being printed in these current issues is drivel, come on, get on the stick and share!!!

[Anonymous]

No I am not a critic I am a subscribing customer. For the most part MR has a very good publication. Every once in a while they put out something that is not so great. This time I thought from looking at the cover that it sounded like a very good issue. Opened it up and read it. Hmmm that's really bad. They look like they are struggling to come up with anything just to put out the magazine. Let's go to the closet and see what's left over we can use. Wasn't even dull or that boring just lack of anything.

RMax

[Anonymous]

I agree that it was pretty boring. But who can do better. hm?
It's hard to put out something every month and make it all great.
For the most part they have a great magazine.

[pmsteamman]

You can always send them pictures or ideas. I'm sure the staff reads this. To the few staff who got to operate the White Creek Railroad (live steam) I hope you had fun and you need to see the Michigan Central and Pennsylvania Pine Creek Sub.

[Anonymous]

Once upon a time, not too long ago, MR featured some really great articles on kitbashing, scratchbuilding, adapting prototypes to model railroading, etc. Or am I getting that confused with another publication? I realize that publishing a monthly magazine is a daunting challenge at times, having done that approx 20 yrs ago in the automotive/hot-rodding field. Model Railroader has always been my 'bible' and I've been a subscriber on and off for many years, but lately I have been disappointed in the content and depth of much of the material and I am particularly annoyed at what is beginning to evolve into primarily a RTR/expensive approach to the hobby -- that is a part of the overall hobby, but not what will maintain my interest. I refer back to my old and ragged, dog -eared early issues repeatedly, esp now that I am starting on the layout I've only been able to dream of in the past. Those older issues are keepers, and for the most part, timeless in their long term value to a modeler. I've rediscovered RMC recently and frankly it is of more value to me than the current -day MR - and I hope that it is okay to utter such constructive critisism on this Forum. My observation is that Kalmbach's releasing annuals (eg "Model Railroad Planning" & "Great Model Railroads"), as well as having introduced, taken over, or is 'involved' with in some fashion, "Garden Railways", "Short Line & Narrow Gauge Gazette", etc. , is spreading out much of the content of what used to be part of Model Railroader. From a marketing sense this may be successful for Kalmbach, but is it for the hobby? One could argue that those only interested in large scale should go for "Garden Railways", or those into narrow gauge should. . .etc., etc. At the current cover price of $4.95 MR is reasonable, although one would hope that loyal subscribers should get a better deal. . . What concerns me is just how thin MR appears to be getting and what do I really get out of it. One only has to look at what Kalmbach has done to "Scale Auto Magazine" aka "Scale Auto Enthusiast" and "Car Modeler" before Kalmbach 'bought out' both, merged them together and cut the quality, content, and number of pages-and now it's going to an issue every other month. Maybe the move by advertisers to the Internet has eroded a significant amount of Kalmbach's revenue. It would be refreshing to see Kalmbach comment on some of this, and if they need assistance re: ideas, techniques, prototypes of rolling stock, motive power, railroad infrastructure, or even prototype railroads worth modeling, they should ask for our inputs-after all, catering to the modeler over the years has been the key to MR's success. I for one hope that MR is around for another 70 years.

[simon1966]

I have found the last few issues to be really quite helpful. I started my first significant layout about 2 months ago and some of the recent articles have appeared just as I was pondering what to do with a particular part of the design. For example, the lift up staging using the cut off Atlas re-railers came out just as I was struggling to get a lift out bridge in my entry way working correctly. It works fine now as a result of this article. I am now easing into scenery in one section of the layout room and this months issue has provided good support for my plans for this. So from the point of view of a relative novice, I have enjoyed the recent issues. I also subscribe to RMC and can certainly appreciate why more advanced members of the group would gravitate to its content. So not only must it be tough to get new marterial every month, it must be very hard to make it appeal to neophytes like me and experts alike.

[Anonymous]

This is what I see; The magazine is attempting to cater to all skill levels. Naturally if a few articles in an issue are written for the beginner, it's viewed as worthless to the intermediates and experts! I guess I don't have a problem with this and expect it. I'm a tool freak! Anything to do with tools, I love and all the articles I've read in the mags. on tools has a tool I find I could really use! Guess what guys, RMC's latest magazine that I have has an article on what? Yes, tools!!!

I don't know what to say to you guys! I am happy with most every MRR's magazine.

As a matter of fact, I would like to see them reprint one article every month, which was published in a way back issue! Stuff by some of the true instigators of this hobby would be great fun to read. It would be interesting to see how little stuff was available and how fantastic a job these folks did with what little they had!

Bill, they've invented a new thing, it's called a paragraph! Try it before some of these folks expire from not taking a breath!

I like to belly ache, too. I just sorta think it's ungratefull to use a media paid for by Model Railroader to critisize them with! However, I'm probably wrong, again!

[Anonymous]

I wrote Terry with very specific suggestions (and a note that telling me to submit was NOT a solution since it's not a co-operative but a product I pay for); he responded that I would be pleased with the next few issues.

Not yet. No change seen in this issue. Still vague, generic stuff. You can't honestly say his two pages on passenger cars is very helpful. It's pretty obvious material.

Let's stop with the "USA Today" style quick reads, pretty (but unhelpful) graphics, and re-instate the detailed, multipage articles with substance the magazine used to have. Remember when we'd get 5 pages on a project? Now, we get two pages with little textboxes and small photos.

It's pretty but not very informative.

[Anonymous]

It's not about being ungrateful. It's about being constructive. If they do not know that customers are unhappy then they would be sitting around going what's happening to circulation. At least by getting feedback from this forum they know why people are unhappy and can change or correct the problem. There are a few things I do not like but overall I like the magazine. You cannot please everyone, even the beginner articles have value. This issue looked like they brought nothing to the table.

RMax

[Anonymous]

hey deschane - I'll make this brief - point well taken (guess I'm just got all this pent up energy after a ten year absence from the hobby.) My comments weren't meant to be hyper critical but an observation from my perspective as a reader of MR since approx 1950 when I started looking at my Dad's MRs. I want MR to be around at least as long as I am and hope that it listens to real time comments from its fans and supporters, and I consider myself one of them, or I wouldn't have taken the time to submit my thoughts. I've always considered MR the premier model railroading magazine and measure other modeling magazines against MR. I wasn't trying to be "ungrateful "by using a media paid for by Kalmbach to criticize them with, and it certainly wasn't "belly-aching" either. I have always expected the best out of MR, anticipated every issue, and have almost every annual and speciality publlication they've done. But my humble opinion is that they either have slipped up a bit or are catering to a different segment of the hobby as of late, as I expressed in my earlier post. (FYI deschane - I'm a tool guy too and subscribe to half a dozen magazines - and yes, I too find something useful in each one of them as I do in MR every issue. Yet , there is one of those that I hold on a pedestal and have come to appreciate the very best effort out of that publication in each issue.

[ATSFCLIFF]

I am a long time subscriber and find the MRR magazine quite informative.One shouldn't use one bland month's issue as a yardstick. Usually over a 12 month period there are many interesting articles especially for beginners. I think it's difficult to cater for the varied tastes of everyone. I personally think that there are not enough articles for the n-scale modeler. Large layouts can be boring especially for those who have to make do with small and limited space but I try to read and pick up scenic tips etc. and try them on my layout.
Where I live, there a handful of hobby stores catering for train modelers hence, I look forward to every month's issue. New product information, product reviews and even advertisements gives me an idea what's the trends in the hobby. Overall I find that they are trying their best and hopefully that they read the forum and maybe pickup some good suggestions to improve the magazine. I still think MRR is good value for money.

[Anonymous]

Bill, My only problem with what you said was there were no paragraph breaks and was attempting to poke fun at you for this! If my humor missed the mark, or I have none, Sorry!

As far as the content of the magazine, you all have a right to your opinions and I can't stop you for stating them, nor would I want to. However, I don't think the small number of folks communicating on this forum makes an avalanche of opinion!

Some of the folks on this forum have nothing to say, unless it is negative. Therefore, what true value does their opinion have.

I'm not going to waste your and my time listing all the articles I found in this issue which I feel where very strong. However, when you have a major contribution by the likes of John Armstrong, a structure article from Robert Smaus, a look at a great North Eastern layout and the end of an 8 part series on modeling a proto 87 layout, I can ask myself, "What more did I want?"

My opinion; you nay-sayers are all wet! Gee, I bet you will disagree with me, huh! Go figure!?!

[IRONROOSTER]

Personally, I like the issue. It's tough to cover all interests and all skill levels,. The magazine focuses on layouts, but I think does a pretty good job in the other areas. Sure, some of those beginner articles are redundant to me now, but they weren't when I started. And I still learn a little something from most of them. I subscribe to 4 model railroading magazines (plus 2 from NMRA and NASG) and occasionally pick up others on the newstand. MR is the best of them. Would I like to see more material, yes I would. But I suspect that is dependent on more advertising and/or more readers. With the proliferation of magazines and the internet sites that's probably not going to happen.
Enjoy
Paul

[Roadtrp]

I've just been a subscriber for 4 months now, so I obviously have no knowledge of the "Golden Era" that some of the folks here are talking about. But personally, I've found many useful articles in every issue I've received. I guess I don't expect EVERY article in every issue to be something I personally find useful, or even something that I want to read. I don't read every article in any other magazine I subscribe to -- why would I expect MR to be any different?

A book or specialized publication like "Basic Trackwork" can target a specialized audience. A more general interest publication like MR has to appeal to a wide audience with various interests and levels of experience. I think MR does an excellent job with this -- at least for the short time I've been a subscriber. [:)]

[Anonymous]

I'm not claiming the MR is a bad magazine nor am I trying to flame them. This issue on a grade scale compared to their normal is a C-. If my high school students handed me this issue I would think they rushed it and just did it to get it done. I am talking about this issue and this issue only . If more issues come out of this quality then there may be a problem. The MR staff should know that their subscribers notice filler and fluff. MR covers a good range for a wide spectrum of skill levels. That is not a problem either. Even the most experienced modeler can find something and go "oh really hmmm". Out of the same issue I really liked the Warehouse on a curve article and the change of scenery article. The passenger trains on a budget missed it's point . It had nothing to do with budget! It spent time on how to make generic cars look like other cars. This would fit any price level. I guess it depends on your budget . Modelers have the same problems wether they are on a budget or not. As for the tool article, as soon as children get their Fisher Price tool kits they know what a hammer is and what to do with it. It doesn't take much longer to figure out screw drivers, drills and what a 40 watt soldering iron are for.. When you start building your layout most people know what they at least basically need. That's the nice thing about this hobby. You can get as exotic as you want or keep it simple. The gizmo article was better from a couple of issues back. MR from time to time shows these tools in action and how to use them properly. That is much better.

RMax

[cacole]

Any magazine can only print what people write and submit to it. I used to have the same problem when I was editing a computer magazine back in the glory days of Atari home computers -- users didn't submit articles so we sometimes had nothing to print. Needless to say, the magazine died after a couple of years because we couldn't think of enough to write about on our own.

[Big_Boy_4005]

There's a pretty wide variety of tastes out there, as is evident from reading this topic.

MR ain't SARA LEE. You know "Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee".

I don't think that a lack of material is the problem here, it may be just the opposite, too much to choose from. This hobby is growing and changing constantly, and MR always has tried to keep up with the times.

Over the years we have seen a shift away from car and engine kits, in favor of RTR. The manufacturers have watched as the demand has dried up for those products.

Stop and think, why did people used to do kits in the first place? What were plastics like in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Combine that with the fast food mentality and the pace at which we live our lives, and RTR is king. Add to that the huge selection in the market place today, and kits are dead.

Kitbashing and super detailing are still alive and well, and if you really like to model perhaps branching out to structures is the answer, as no manufacturer will ever make a model of "YOUR HOUSE" or most buildings we see.

I have been reading MR for over 30 years, and in that time I have learned and seen a lot of interesting things. Of course in that amount of time, finding new ideas becomes more and more dificult. Ever have someone tell you something you've heard before, an old joke perhaps?

I often find myself turning the pages of MR, and saying to myself, "yeah, yeah, so what's so wondreful about that?" It's like looking for diamonds in a pile of coal, and the pile just keeps getting bigger. But every once in a while......[swg]

[Anonymous]

I think MR is always helpful

DOGGY

[Fergmiester]

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

[ClinchValleySD40]

I've noticed they've tried to broaden their coverage. That seems to be the reason for some of the basic stuff, like what tools to use. And I never ever get tired of seeing other layouts, I'm glad they always include them.

It's not perfect, but it's still the best out there (IMHO).

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

Any magazine can only print what people write and submit to it. I used to have the same problem when I was editing a computer magazine back in the glory days of Atari home computers -- users didn't submit articles so we sometimes had nothing to print. Needless to say, the magazine died after a couple of years because we couldn't think of enough to write about on our own.

Right, thats my experience too. While there are a few people who could be called "professional" writers in the hobby, most of the content comes from readers sharing there knowledge and experience with the rest of us, although I'm sure MR does recieve many more submittals than they can possibly publish.

[Anonymous]

I think the changes that have come to MR are simply a sign of the times. The issues in my file go back into the 30's and are complete from 1954 on. The magazine used to be produced by model railroaders that were reasonably adept at publishing a magazine. The staff today seems to be folks with degrees in journalism that happen to dabble in model railroading. The magazine has been realigned and restructured at least twice in the past 20 years or so. There is more shine, more glitz, more quick hit stuff. Lots of color and a simply splendid presentation style. The days of articles like "Pillar to Post" are over. The articles that Gordon Odegard seemed to speciallize in, small trackside details, small buildings along the right-of-way, are all gone. Part of the reason for the indepth articles of the past were the number of modellers that had to build the things on their layouts, RTR was a rare option and the quality of RTR was substandard at best. Today the hobby is much less scratchbuilding and more lets buy what we need and get it running. Some suppliers seem to be phasing out kits in favor of RTR. There has been a major change in the hobby, much of it tending to be improvement on the past. I cannot find fault with MR simply because they are keeping up with the trend in the hobby. I still get good value for my money from MR.

Tom

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fergmiester

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

But MR is a business, a magazine produced for profit by a company.

Not a club.

Not a co-op.

If you went to the grocery store and they didn't have what you wanted, would you be happy if they said, "Well, grow some and bring it in"?

No. because you are paying for a product. In that case, some sort of vegetable.

It is a cop-out for a large publisher like Kalmbach to charge $5 for a periodical and then tell us it's up to us to send in material for it if we want to see good articles. That's not my job. Solicit new writers; solicit article from established writers; use in-house talent.

But don't make it my problem if your magazine for which you charge $5 needs better material.

[Anonymous]

hey deschane -

Guess what I learned how to do today?

I appreciate your "apology", but I took it as a well deserved ribbing!
Have you determined what I learned how to do today - yet?

If I told you that this 58 yr old fart is teaching himself how to use a PC, would that be a big enough hint? (I'm working on tightening up my sentence structure next !)

Bill

[Anonymous]

Personally, I really like the articles on srcratchbuilding, kitbashing, and kit building. I also like the layouts of Midwestern roads (only one was a cover story in the 16 months I've been a subscriber) and DCC guides, but unfortunately this month's article lingered on these huge layouts most of us couldn't pay for or upkeep, and beginner stuff. (I am a beginner, but the "Passenger Train on a Budget" and "Tools to build a Layout" was too basic for me.) After all though, no issue of MR never has and never will have every single paragraph and picture useful to me.

The magazine needs to stop visiting huge layouts modeling Eastern coal country and the Southwest, and find a few nice Midwestern and reasonably sized layouts.
Just my 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fergmiester

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

I wi***his were true, but the more I contemplate the diminished informational value of the articles I read, the more I sense the oppressive hand of the editors. Case in point, the May 2004 issue's cover story: "Great Layout, Great Ideas". The subhead says that Dave Kotsonis tells how he built his layout. Aside from a bullet-list insert, the words are not Dave's. The body of the article is composed out of the same cookie-cutter phrases that seem to be the building blocks of any layout article, such as "set it in the late 1940's and early 1950's... so he could run a wide variety of locomotives..."; "he drybrushes the rock surface with lighter colored paints to hightlight the details"; "Though he builds some as kits straight from the box, most have been kitbashed or scratchbuilt...". Each of these could be explained a little more, perhaps demonstrated with a photo or two, but that kind of substance wouldn't have the high gloss of the photos they do print. Several times in the article, I read a reference to something which I'd really like to see, and went scanning the photos only to find it was left out. One whole paragraph described the memorable Old Man of the Mountain, a replicated piece of scenery, and scenic landmarks are so rarely faithfully modeled that I thought for sure there'd be a picture. No such luck. The scratchbuilt structures at the quarry, written about, are insignificant background material in one photograph, there is simply no opportunity to learn about quarries from this article, despite the research Dave put into it. And thre of the original freight cars he got started with 40 years ago are still in operational service? Show them to me!

The insert, though, with Dave's tips in a bulleted list, is actually rather valuable. If we had been given 6 pages of just this list, fully demonstrated in the photos, I would have had an article worth the price of admission. The "Layout At A Glance" feature, which summarizes things, could theoretically replace all the generic schlock the pads out the article proper. My sense is that it is an editorial decision, to diffuse any of the possible depth or intrigue down to an acceptable-to-all, mild-cheddar-cheese generality. Which is odd, because clearly they want startling titles for the cover: "Great Layout, Great Ideas" came across as a competent layout, conventional ideas, even though I know the potential to live up to that claim is there. The same summarizes my feelings for MR as a whole: competent, conventional, but with the potential to return to their pioneering past.

[Anonymous]

Bill,

Who said you can't teach us older dogs new tricks!!

Mark

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjm89

...unfortunately this month's article lingered on these huge layouts most of us couldn't pay for or upkeep...

While I can appreciate your desire for model railroads representing different locales, I like seeing articles on the big layouts that I will never do. It gives me a chance to see them, I can live vicariously, and I can still get ideas from them, even if they are not the same size scale.

Speaking of living vicariously, I would like to see some articles on these large layouts where a pictorial follows a train during an operating session. Whether they follow a mainline train, capturing the different scenes and trains it meets, or whether they follow a way freight, showing the detail of the industries, cars, trackwork, and engines. This way, we can see some of the layouts already illustrated in MR, but in more detail, and you get more of a feel of being there.

---jps

[Anonymous]

I thought this issue was pretty boring, too. The 8 tips from a Pro was helpful, but not much else. What I'd really like to see is more layouts featured and more pictures of the layout. Those could fill in all the pages filled with those darned adds![:(!] I mean, it's nice to seev what's new and coming out, and I always look at what Trainworld has on sale, but otherwise, there's too many!